Kautilya on the State

Kautilya on The State

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi


Author: Dr. Ruchi Tyagi

College/ Department: Kalindi College, University of

Delhi.




Kautilya, the great diplomat, politician, upholder of political unity and the maker of the

destiny of Magadh, was born in 375 B.C. in the historic city of Aryavratain the Magadh

Empire. He was born to a learned, though poor, Brahmin named Chanak, after whom he

came to be known as Chanakya, the son of Chanak. Since he was well-versed in the art and

science of statecraft and diplomacy, he also came to be known as Kautilya.

Figure : Chandragupta Maurya

Figure : Chanakya

He received his education in the Takshashila University, where he had occasion to meet

Chandragupta Maurya. After finishing his studies, he taught at Takshashila for a while.

Later, keeping in view his special knowledge of politics and diplomacy,he was appointed by

Chandragupta as his Prime Minister. At that time, India stood divided into tiny fragmented

states. Chanakya played the historic role of bringing these smaller states together and

uniting them, for the first time, into a great Indian Empire.The principal objective of

Kautilya’s life was (the attainment ofDharma (ethical values), Artha (Economic

welfare). kama (material pleasures) and Moksha (Salvation). Despite the fact that Kautilya

was the all in all of the Mauryan Empire,



Besides politics, the other subjects touched upon include Economics, Ethics, Sociology,

Criminology, Intelligence & Espionage, Science of Education, Warfare, Engineering and

others. In the Ancient Indian Political Thought, Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a landmark,

without parallel anywhere else in the world. It negates the Western contention that India

was not attuned to political thinking.

We have generally been accustomed to begin our study of political theory and thought with

the concepts of ideal state of Plato and Aristotle and then jump suddenly to the study of

diplomacy of Machiavelli. Very few people have cared to take into account that it was

Kautilya of ancient India who, too, had described the organization of a well-organized state,

and the qualities of an ideal

ruler, besides laying down the principles of practical politics and ethical and moral order of

the society.In fact, Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a classic on the nature of the State and the art

of governance. Kautilya accepted Monarchy as the most ideal form of State and, on that

assumption; he described in Arthashastra the domestic and inter-state policies which an

ideal state should adopt. Kautilya’s description of these principles was relevant not only to

his times, but also continues to be relevant today and would hopefully remain so for the

generation to come.

it was after more than 2200 years that a Brahmin of Tanjore found the handwritten

manuscript of this book in 1905 in the Mysore Library. Sham Shastri, the great historian

published Arthashastra for the first time in 1909. The scope of this great classic is confined

mainly to politics. It contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150 chapters and 6,000 shlokas. the

Arthashastra. Though Arthashastra was authored by Kautilya at least during 325 B.C., he

lived the simple life of an ascetic and found time to author his world-renowned classic, A

brief sketch of the topics discussed in the Arthashastra will facilitate the visualisation of the

comprehensiveness of polity. In the first place, the theory of kingship or the activities and

functions of the sage-king - rajarshivrittam has been given a detailed description. The first,

sixth and eighth books are devoted to the elucidation of this subject.Kautilya discusses in

the first book the

concepts of discipline and punishment;he goal of knowledge, appointment of ministers,

councilors, priests and spies and envoys; protection and education of the princes; conduct

of a prince kept under confinement; treatment of a prince kept under restraint; duties of a

king (Rajapranidhi); duties of the king towards the female quarters and lastly the personal

safety of the king. The sixth book elucidates “the source of the circle of kingdom”. It deals

with the seven constituent factors of a commonwealth which are the king, the minister, the

country, the fort, the treasury, the army and the friend. It constructs the categories which

make the ideal, in each of the factors listed.

The eighth book examines the vices and calamities of each of the sevenfold factors. It

analyses the troubles of the king and his kingdom, the aggregate of the troubles of men and

the group of troubles of a friend. It makes an analysis of the relative gravity of the troubles

of the sevenfold factors and the monarchical orientation of the book is revealed in its view

of the king’s troubles being the most serious.



Figure : Arthrashashtra contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150 chapters and 6,000 shlokas.

Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a landmark, without parallel anywhere else in the world. It

negates the Western contention that India was not attuned to political thinking

Though the Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science, but as R.P. Kangle

asserts, it is possible to trace some sort of a theoretical basis for the teaching of the

shastra. Monarchy is indeed assumed to be the normal form of government. The entire

teaching is addressed to the king, the single ruler of the state.

Management Fundamentals in Kautilya's Arthashastra -3

Leadership Qualities be Ever Active Love for his team Members Consultation Respect to Spiritual people

1.1 The Origin of State (Kingship)

Kautilya regarded state as an essentially human, not a divine, institution. This was in

keeping with the early vedic view which looked at monarch essentially as a human being,

rather than a divine person. The theoretical aspect of the State did not fall within the

philosophical domain of Kautilya, for he was not a political theorist.



Figure : As regards the ideal of kingship Kautilya writes,

"In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare, his welfare.

What pleases him he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall

consider as good."

Yet, his stray reflections on the origin of State help us have a better understanding of his

concept of State in its totality. And, the almost casual mention of these ideas in his

Arthashastra is hardly surprising, as these ideas had already gained currency during the

Mauriyan period. Kautilya refers to the problem of the origin of the state during discussion

of spies among themselves. One party there argues that government came into existence to

counteract law of jungle that prevailed in society. (I.13.6-9) Maatsyaanyaabhibhutah praja

manum vaivasvatam raajaanam chakrire; Dhaanyashadbhaagam panyadashbhaagam

hiranyam chaasya bhaagdheyam prakalpyaamaasuh; Ten bhritah raajaanaah prajaanaam

yogakshemvahaasteshaam kilvishamdanadakaraa haranti ayogkshemvahaashch

prajaanaam; According to R.P.Kangle, here, “we have something like an original contract for

the establishment of monarchy”.

Kautilya was disturbed to find that people had to suffer the anarchy of Matsyanyaya, the

proverbial ‘judicial’ tendency of the large fish to swallow the smaller ones. He thought that it

was primarily to get rid of this Hobbesian kind of a situation which led people select Manu,

the Vaivasvata, as their first king. While selecting their king, the subjects expected him not

only to ensure their “safety and security” and “punish” people with anarchic tendencies, but

also to “maintain individual and social order”. For this purpose, they empowered him to

collect property taxes or royal dues equivalent to “one-sixth of the grain grown and one-

tenth of merchandise”. The king was also authorized to act at once, as Indra and Yama

acted, while dispensing rewards and punishment. And, acting as such, he could "never be

despised". The prevailing view was that if a subject disregarded the king, he would have to

undergo not only political but also divine punishment. Thus, to Kautilya, the king derived his authority to rule from those who selected him for this

office and paid him property tax or royal dues to enable him to fulfill the duties and

functions assigned to him. Still, this is no theory of a social contract such as is worked out in

the works of Hobbes or Rousseau. The purpose underlying those words is to dissuade

people from entertaining feelings of disaffection towards the ruler.



Did you know

1.1.0 The Origin of State (Kingship)

As regards the ideal of kingship Kautilya wrote, "In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare, his welfare. What

pleases him he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall

consider as good." Regarding the qualifications of a king, he should be an educated,

cultured, chivalrous and a religious person."

Figure:Kingship

Qualifications of a King

He Should be educated Cultured Chivalrous and religious person

1.2 The Organic State:The Saptanga Theory

Kautilya builds up his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis of seven

elements, which he describes in his Arthashastra asSaptanga. The seven elements, despite

being enumerated separately, stand in the closest possible relation to one another and are

in themselves “mutually serviceable”. Together, they constitute the State as an organism,

“like a chariot composed of seven parts fitted and subservient to one another”. Though

Kautilya likens the State to a Chariot, he conceives it essentially as a living, not a dead,

organism in which the Swami (the king) is the spirit that regulates and guides the remaining

constituents of the body-politic. This harmony is essential not only to their own existence,

but also to that of the whole which they constitute together. Further, according to Kautilya,

of these seven elements, each subsequent element is inferior to the preceding ones. Thus,

the Swami or the King (first prakriti or element) becomes superior to the remaining six



elements. His righteousness and other qualities would result in the righteousness and

prosperity of other elements, whereas his vices would multiply the troubles and calamities

of the other elements. In this connection, it is to be noted that while Manu argues that

various elements could gain importance on different occasions, the Mahabharta considers all

the elements as supplementary to one another.

To an extent; the organic theory of State finds elaboration in the Ancient Greek Political

Philosophy. For instance: while comparing the State with the human body, Plato had argued

that just as a cut in the finger causes pain in the body, similarly injury of one organ creates

problems for the other organs of the body-politic. Aristotle was of the view that no organ

and no individual have any value, if not considered in totality.

For instance, an arm is meaningless without the body. The Greek philosophers wanted to

avert the causes which endangered the unity and solidarity of the city-states, whereas

Kautilya aimed at comprehensiveness of Anvikshaki, Trayi, Vaarta and Dandaniti.

Seven Angas, Prakritis, or elements were enumerated and elucidated by Kautilya for

describing “the nature of the State” in its totality. As laid down in the first chapter

of Arthashastra’s Sixth Book, entitled Mandala Yonih, theseare:

Figure : Hierarchy to denote Swami (King to Mitra allies)

1. The Swami, the sovereign King; 2. The Mantrin, the ministers; 3. The Janapada, the people and the territory; 4. The Durga, the fortification; 5. The Kosha, the treasury; 6. The Sena or the Danda, the army; and 7. The Mitra, the allies.

All these elements establish the nature of State. The Seven characteristics that emerge

from these seven elements are: 1. Unity, uniformity and solidarity of the state; 2. Stable and systematic administration; 3. Definite territory, able to protect and support both the king and the subjects; 4. Planned system of security and defence; 5. System of just and proportionate taxation; 6. Strong and powerful state; and 7. Freedom from alien rule.

Through these elements, Kautilya is able to depict the various facets of the state of his

conception. Inclusion of Mitra (ally), Kosha (treasury), and Sena (army) as separate

elements in the formation of State may not be acceptable today, but it had a marked

relevance in an age when the theory of Separation of Powers was not predominant and



when the State meant nothing but the sole embodiment of the highest executive authority,

subject only to the supremacy of laws. As a matter of fact, while incorporating all these

elements as constituents of his body-politic, Kautilya is only according recognition to all the

agencies which contribute to the “moral and political existence of a community”. Moreover,

by including Mitra (ally) as a constituent element of the State, Kautilya has succeeded in

presenting the State “not as a thing in itself, but as one entity among and in relation to

many” in the international sphere, He recognizes not only its sovereign character but also

its interdependence. His polity has, therefore, been rightly described by M. V. Krishna Rao

as “pluralistically dominated monism”. Kautilya, thus, furnishes us with full and complete

definition of the State.

The modern constituents of the State, such as sovereignty, government, territory and

population are covered respectively by the elements ofSwami, Amatya and Janapada in

the Saptang theory of the State. In modern times, unless a State receives recognition of

other States, its de jure status is not established. This element in the modern States may

be compared to mitra (ally). Though in the modern definition of the State, there is no place

for army and taxation, these are covered by the concept of sovereign power, which

exercises the function of coercion and tax-collection. A remarkable similarity between the Kautilyan and the Marxist conceptions of the State has

also been traced with reference to their view of the class-character and the need

of Danda and Kosha. R. S. Sharma concludes his analysis with his observation that

“Kautilya’s Saptang theory not only bears resemblance to the modern definition of the

State, but contains certain elements typical of the State expounded by Angels.”

Kautilya’s concept of ‘State’ is, however, vividly reflected in his description of angas or

elements of the Stale. He did not specifically define the term ‘State’ as he was essentially a

man of action (a councillor), and not a theorist. His concern for and emphasis on the

internal and external security of State was to save humanity from a sort of Hobbesian state

of nature, a state of war, marked by Matsyanyaya (the strong, like the big fish, tyrannizing

and devouring the weaker and smaller ones). Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that, on

the one hand, Kautilya constructs the categories which make the ideal, in each of the seven

constituents; on the other hand, the eighth book of Arthashastra examines the vices and

calamities of each of the sevenfold factors.

It analysis the troubles of the king and his kingdom (like gambling, drunkenness, greed,

anger etc.), the aggregate of the troubles of men (being untrained, greedy, over-

ambitious), the groups of molestators (if most inhabitants indulge in armed conflicts), the

group of obstructionists (the majority of inhabitants being agricultural labourers), the group

of the troubles of the treasury (arising out of man-made and natural calamities), the group

of troubles of the army (because of loyal soldiers’ resentment on account of non-payment of

salaries and wives’ influence on solders) and, lastly, the group of troubles of a friend (who

could be influenced or bribed and could turn neutral at times of crisis). Kautilya was of the

view that if a fault in one element affects other elements, then it should be considered

disastrous and has to be rectified. Here, it is important to note that Kautilya provided for a mechanism to prevent the king

from becoming self-centered and autocratic dictator, by keeping him under the control of

sacred and social traditions, ethical norms aimed at peace and prosperity of his people. The

sovereign of Kautilya is bound by the ethical norms of Anvikshaki,

Trayi, Vaarta and Dandaniti, which he can not change or alter arbitrarily. The happiness and

prosperity of the king consists in the happiness and prosperity of his subjects. By

accepting Praja Dharma as Raaja Dharma, the King of Kautilya is accepted and adored

as parens patriar.



Debate 1.2.0 The Organic State : The Saptanga Theory

“Saptanga theory is relevant in today’s time “. Comment Rules:- 1.You may write “for” or “Against” the motion. 2.Your comments must not exceed 150 words.

Do you think that method of internal grading is “fare?” Tick the appropriate choice 1.Yes 2.No 3. Can’t say

The Saptanga Theory: 1.2.0

1.3 The Element of Sovereignty

Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of State, Kautilya has accorded to the king “the

highest place in the body-politic”. The Swami is the chief executive head of the State and,

is, thus “the consumation of all other elements”. He is not merely a feudatory chieftain, but

a variable sovereign, owing allegiance to none. The word Swami is derived from the

word swayam which refers to self-determining. The Swami,therefore, becomes a living and



animate embodiment, which is subjected to be ruled by none, does not follow any external

rulings and is liable only to self-imposed restrictions. He is, thus, the symbol of legal and

political authority and power. Distinguished from Raja or Rajan, Swamihas the reflection of

political superior or sovereign. R.S. Sharma has accepted the king as the sovereign for

being the final deciding authority in the state. Romilla Thapur has admitted the

crystallization of sovereignty in the king’s court and also in the metropolitan centers, if not

in the peripheral tribal republics. A.S. Altekar has considered the existence of 16

Mahajanapadas as a proof of state formation during Mauryan Empire. R.P. Kangle is of the

view that “sovereignty is not intended to be transferred to a council of noblemen in a sort of

aristocracy or to representatives of the people in a sort of democracy”, it is imbibed in

monarch, the Swami. Indeed, a reference to the problem of the concept of sovereignty is

immensely important. In Ancient India, there were sovereign States in the sense that the

holders of the political office of kingship could generally make their ‘will’ prevail by resort to

‘force’.

Various scholars have only been denying the conceptual equivalent in Sanskrit of the notion

of State sovereignty, and not the historical existence of actual powerful sovereign

kingdoms. U.N. Ghoshal observes, "In the history of our justice and political ideas, reference

to the overriding authority of the king's decree over all other judicial processes is of high

significance, for it clearly and unequivocally enumerates, for the first time, the principle of

the king's judicial sovereignty".

Debate

1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty

“The concept of “Swami” is irrelevant in today’s time”. Comment Rules:- 1. You can write “For” or “Against” the motion. 2. Limit your answer to 150 words

Did you know 1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty

Kautilya's Arthashastra:- Book VI, "The Source of Sovereign States" states that the king, the minister, the country,

the fort, the treasury, the army and the friend are the elements of sovereignty.

1.4 Function of State

Kautilya’s king was not to be a despot, exercising power through sheer military force, but

was to rule his subjects through affection. Accordingly, the duties and functions that he is

called upon to perform are of two types: (1) Protective (2) Promotive.

Debate

1.4.0 Functions of State



“The qualities, requisite training and obligations of the King, as described by Kautilya, are

equally relevant today as these were during Kautilya’s time.”

Rules:-

1. You can express your views “For” or “Against” the topic.

2. Limit your answer to 150 words.

Think

1.4.0 Functions of State

Do you feel that today’s political leader’s fails to strike a balance between their “Protective”

and “Promotive” functions?

Function of State - 1.4.0

1.4.1 The Protective Function

In so far as the protective functions that Kautilya expects the Swami to perform, the

following are of vital nature: (1) Being the natural guardian and saviour (the parens patriae) of his people, his highest

duty is to protect



the life of his people, specially the ones in distress, the widows, the women without

children, the women with infants, the orphans, the sick and the indigent hermits, shrotriyas and students property of the people

(2) To put down violence and maintain law and order (3) To avert dangers and command the army (4) To 'redress peoples' grievances (5) To punish the wrong-doers (6) To administer justice impartially and in accordance with the sacred

law (Dharma, evidence (vyavhara), history (Samstha) and enacted law(Raajasthasanay)

1.4.2 The Promotive Function

On the other hand, his promotive functions include the following: (1) To promote the moral and material happiness and welfare of his people, as in their

happiness lies his happiness and in their welfare his welfare (2) To enable them to pursue freely their independent efforts in life (3) To maintain unity and solidarity (4) To reward virtue (5) To promote agriculture, industry and arts (6) To regulate the means of livelihood especially of the labourers and artisans (7) To encourage education and help students

In the exercise of these functions, Kautilya’s King was all powerful. The limits of his

authority were imposed by the social and religious customs of his State which have existed

from times immemorial and with which he was required not to interface. Further, the king

was not to be a despot exercising power through sheer military force. Instead he was to rule

his subjects through affection. Kautilya puts great emphasis on the devotion and loyalty of

the Subjects. Accordingly, he suggests that no king should ever generate poverty,

acquisitive greediness and disaffection among the people. The qualities, requisite training

and obligations of the King, as described by Kautilya, have definite similarities with Plato’s

Philosopher-King, and are equally relevant today as these were during Kautilya’s time.

1.5 Case for Political Economy

Distinguished from the Nitisastra tradition, Kautilya made Political Economy an independent

discipline; propounded a theory of politics which dealt with the immediate concerns of

polity; emphasized the need for a strong political centre in India. In a way, Artha is

equivalent to both domestic and international politics. It also comprehends criminal and civil

law and discussion of warfare. Thus, it is clear that the termArthashastra basically and

fundamentally treats of political problems. Economic problems occupy a very subordinate

place in the scheme of the investigations and discussions of the Arthashastra. The use of the term Arthashastra for the science of politics has been a subject of debate

among scholars. The usual meaning of the termArthashastra is money or wealth and so the

term Arthashastra should ordinarily connote the Science of Wealth or Economics, and the

Science of Governance. But according to Kautilya, ‘the substance of mankind is

termed Artha (wealth), the earth which contains and is termed Artha(wealth): the science

which deals with the means of acquiring and maintaining earth is Arthashastra, Science of

Political-Economy. While conceding that Artha denotes the avocations of men, Kautilya



contends that the term can also denote the territory where the people live

together. Arthashastra, thus, is the science which deals with the protection and promotion

of wealth and the acquisition, protection and governance of territory. Kautilya definitely

raised this classic to the level of a systematic, comprehensive and rational-analytical branch

of knowledge, owing to his intensive treatment of all the related and kindered topics of

kingship, economics, social relations, law and diplomacy.

Kautilya believed that political order was responsible for and conducive to the attainment of

all round progress and prosperity and helped society to achieve and scale new heights, to

conserve and consolidate its achievements, to maximize its gains and to promote proper

and equitable distribution of social gains. This is how Kautilya defines (I.4.4-6) “Anvikshiki Trayeevartanam Yogakshemsadhano Dandah; Tasya Nitirdandanitih;

Alabdhalabhartha Labdhaparirakshini Rakshitvivardhani Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipadini” The science of politics, thus, deals with acquisition and preservation of rest of all other

branches of knowledge. Kautilya, further, says that politics deals with “the acquisition of

what has not been gained (Alabdha Laabhaartha); the preservation of what has been

acquired (labdho Paritrakshaniv); the increase of what has been preserved (Rakshit

vivardhani); and the bestowal of the surplus upon the deservers (Vriddhasya Tirtheshu

Pratipaadini).” This makes the scope of political science truly comprehensive and humane,

because it is not merely concerned with law and order, but also with preservative and

developmental functions as well as with distributive justice so that the surplus is bestowed

upon the deserving.`

Here, Trayeee (the structure and knowledge constituted by the three Vedas: Rig,

Yajur and Sama); Anvikshiki (the philosophical systems of the

dualistic Samkhya and Yoga and the materialistic philosophy of Lokayata);

Varta (which comprehends agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade) and Danda (which is the

mean to achieve Yogakshema, the welfare of all) are the four considered branches of

knowledge. Dandaniti deals with the means of acquiring (Alabdha Labhartha), preservaton

(Labhda Parirakshim), accentuation (Rakshit Vivardhani) and righteous and due

apportionment (Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipadini) of Anvikshiki, Trayee and Varta.

Rajadharma, thus, expected the dandadhara to ensure the acquisition and preservation of

dialectics; to aid the Vedas in so far as it prescribes ways and means as integral part of the

Vedic view of life and culture. It aids Varta because both treasury (related to Varta) and

punishment (Danda) are necessary for the control of one's own kingdom and those of the

enemies. Since Dandaniti is so vitally essential for the other branches of knowledge,

Kautilya goes on to say that, it is on this art of government that the course of the progress

of the world depends." He further asserts that, therefore, the (first) three branches of

knowledge are dependent for their well-being (or rooted in) on the art of punishment. In an attempt to construct a systematic and balanced philosophy and harmonious

integration, Kautilya acknowledged the proximation ofDharma, Artha, Kamaand Moksha as

the four-fold pursuits of aspirations of an individual. The similar philosophy of balance and

harmonious integration was preached for Dandadhara. As Kautilya proclaims that "the King

may enjoy in an equal degree the three pursuits of life: charity, wealth and aesthetic desire,

which are interdependent upon each other." However, anyone of these three in an extreme

degree, becomes injurious. Nonetheless, he admits that wealth is a very significant

emotional aspect of existence.

Hence, he accepts the notion of the maximisation of wealth and territory, a full treasure and

power of punishment to control one's own people (in the latter's pursuit towards Dharma,

Artha, Kamaand Moksha) and also to suppress the enemy. Kautilya insists not on the fulfillment of one limited and partial aim, but on success in all the



fields. He asserts : “As Dharma is the basis of wealth, and as Kama is the fruit of wealth,

success in obtaining that kind of wealth which is conducive to the promotion of Dharma,

Artha andKama is comprehensive success”, which, in turn, leads towards the realization of

Moksha. Upon the just balance of first three, depends the sustenance of life. If either of

these - dharma, prosperity or sensual pleasure – would be enjoyed in excess, it would

destroy ‘not only the other two, but also itself.’ It was in the pursuit of humanistic aim that

Kautilya discussed all political variables, which might lead to the rise or decline of the state

including the influence of stars, mystical numbers, religious superstitions and social

practices. It was his singular achievement to weave the influence of geo-political factors into

his science of administration, which is truly inductive in character. Kautilya, however, followed the Smriti pattern in formulating his ideas of the policy and the

state. In the words of U.N. Ghoshal, Kautilya contributed not only to the remarkable concept

of Raajadharma in the Mahabharta, but also to the incorporation of

the Arthashastra material into the old Smriti tradition. He, thus, constituted one of the most

distinctive characteristics of the political thought of Manu and Yajnavalkya as well as of

Bhishma in the great Epic Mahabharta.

1.6 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)

The ‘welfare state’ in ancient India was realized as Yogakshema, the goal of which was to

realize all-round development, or the ‘holistic welfarism’ material as well as spiritual and

this development was of the entire society, instead of an individual. Material prosperity was

not to be pocketed by a few, but there had to be its just and equitable distribution. Material

prosperity was never considered as an end in itself, instead it was believed that material

provisions are essential and it is the duty of state to ensure this. It may be noted

that Yogakshema was a forerunner of the contemporary idea of Rama-Rajya and

even Antyodaya (welfare of the poorest of the poor). To Kautilya, the State was subordinated to the society which it did not create, but which it

existed to secure. The highest office of the State is, thus, an aggregate of the people whose

welfare is an end in itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end. The Kautilyan

maxim: “Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam” (in the welfare and

happiness of the people lies the king’s welfare and happiness), is indicative of his emphasis

on the equation of welfare Vs. power. Kautilya, in fact, was the spokesman of ‘Udyaana’, the

establishment of righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta,enhancement to trade and

commerce. In the words of M.V. Krishna Rao, “Kautilya was a state-socialist in the sense

that he stood for the maintenance of the authority of the State, for the extension of its

functions and, thereby, established a socialist State”. Good government ensued from the

social welfare measures that the State took, pursuing them diligently and consistently. It

was towards this end that Kautilya spelled out the measures for the regulation of commerce

and mines and other manufacturers. Guilds and artisans were protected by the State. Kautilya's ideas, thus, added up to more

than "body of positive knowledge which has been applied to industrial

technique”, and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at realizing Dharma

through Artha. Kautilya envisaged a policy of state-welfare, while leaving the individual to

maximum of self-help. Realizing the limited resources, Kautilya’s state targeted its

expenditure towards the aged, the sick, the weak, the disabled and the poor and “those in

distress when these have no one to look after them.” The basic assumption was that the

rich and the affluent do have resources to provide for their own welfare and the state need

not allocate its scarce funds for the purpose. Thus, Kautilyan state tries to maximize the

welfare function with resource constraints by adopting the notion of “help the help-less”. Moreover, Kautilya was against developing a ‘dependency syndrome’ in the society in which



the individual continues to make larger and larger demands on the state. Rather he

preferred to create a social system in which individual’s initiative could be kindled so that

the individual or the family learns to solve its problems by self-effort. Kautilya’s concept of

welfare treated family as a basic unit and enjoined upon the family to look after its

members in times of difficulty and crisis. It was considered the moral responsibility of the

family to look after the welfare of the household. Here, Kautilya wanted the state to provide

welfare in manageable proportions. The policy of Kautilyan state conformed to the welfare

provisions to help a person towards “self-help” and also towards the growth of his unique

personality. ‘Cradle-to-grave’ model of welfare state was completely unsuited Kautilyan

perceptions. A limited welfare state, operating under social control, was eminently coincided

with Kautilya’s notion of ‘Yogakshema’ or the welfare state.

1.6.0 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)

“Today’s political leaders have failed in the “holistic welfarism’ targeting the materialistic

and spiritual development of the entire society than an individual” Rules:- 1. You can write “For” or “Against” the topic. 2. Your answer should not exceed more than 150 words.

Activities


Kautilyan believed that the welfare of a state could be increased by adopting the notion of

“help the help-less”. Carry out a survey in your society to find out how many people believe in this and if they

have actually experienced it.

Opinion Poll


‘Cradle-to-grave’ model of welfare state was completely unsuited Kautilyan perceptions.

Cast your votes on the same 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Can’t say

1.7 Danda and the Notion of Law

Kautilya asserted that Danda (the coercive authority of state) must be yielded with

discretion. If it is used too harshly, the subjects are distressed; if it is used too lightly, the

king will not be held in awe; if it is used in the proper manner, the subjects are happy and

the realm progresses. (I.4.11-15) Further, Kautilya never wanted to use Danda only in

narrow or prohibitive aspect. He asserted that it establishes law and order in society and

thus, indirectly brings about a natural tendency in the average individual to obey the law of

land, which renders the frequent use of force unnecessary. It ultimately secures proper

progress in religion, philosophy and economic well-being. Hence, Danda enables the

individual and the state to have new achievements to their credit, to protect and increase

what has been acquired and to distribute the gains properly as between the state and

individuals, as also among the individuals themselves.



Kautilya’s Swami (the king), however, has to rely on Danda to maintain the State as a going

concern. Once Danda is removed from the scene, the State loses its raison d'eire and is

practically vanished. The king (Dandadharabhave) keeps all beings in Swadharma straight

jacket and ensures that they cooperate with each other to realise happiness for all.

Categorically asserting the transcendental character of Nyaya (edicts of kings) and the

enacted law, Kautilya calls the king as the fountain of justice. As he puts it explicitly, Sacred

Law (Dharma), evidence(Vyavahara), history (Samstha) and edicts of

kings (Rajashasana) are four legs of law. Of these four, the latter is superior to the one

previously named.

By superseding the Shastras, the king could promulgate new laws, but their basic principles

were to be rooted in the Shastras. U.N. Ghoshal observes, "In the history of our justice and

political ideas, reference to the overriding authority of the king's decree over all other judicial processes is of high significance, for it clearly and

unequivocally enumerates, for the first time, the principle of the king's judicial sovereignty".

Kautilya adds that the king who administers justice in accordance with the sacred

law (Dharma),evidence (Vyavhara) history (Samstha), and edicts of

kings (Rajashasana) will be able to conquer the whole world bounded by the four quarters (Chaturantam Mahim). Kautilya, however, holds reason to be superior, when the king's law is in conflict with the

sacred law. "But, whenever Sacred Law (Shastra) is in conflict with the rational

law (Dharma Nyaya in king's law), then reason shall be held authoritative…” Having dealt

with the ordained and the other prerogatives of the Swami, and the traditions and usages in

regard to his Dharma, one would tend to agree with Kautilya in so far as the supremacy of

reason is concerned.

1.8 Advocacy for a Strong Centralized Monarchical Bureaucratic State in the Indian-Subcontinent

Bhisma in Mahabharata emphasized the tendency of all kingdoms to slip into anarchy in the

absence of a strong political order. Kautilya was, altogether, convinced that society can

never hope to be in peace without a strong state. Realizing the dangers of anarchy and

necessity to transcend it by establishing order in society, Kautilya used the simile

of Matsyanyaya depicting larger fish eating the smaller when anarchy prevails. It endangers

both the social system as well as the individual’s sense of security and his yearning for

future. Kautilya finds remedy in strong ruler capable of creating order. Asserting for

supremacy of the king, Kautilya warns against tyrannical tendencies, which may result in

popular wrath and destroy the kingdom. He argues that “when a people are impoverished,

they become greedy; when they are greedy, they become disaffected; when disaffected,

they voluntarily go to the side of the enemy and destroy their own master.” Hence, no king

should give room to such causes that may bring impoverishment, greed or disaffection

among the people.

Kautilya, perhaps, was the first thinker who envisaged an all-India state or even empire

with right laws and institutions, honest and clean administration devoted to public welfare

and right kind of relations with other states. He identified Chakravartin ruler with one who

rules the entire land south of the Himalayas, which would cover the whole of the present

day India, with easy to defend natural geographical boundaries.

While J.C. Heesterman rejected the nature of Kautilyan state as being centralized, R.S.

Sharma has projected Kautilyan state as centralized bureaucratic state and Romilla Thapur



has asserted that circumstantial evidence reflects some scope for federal relations among

the peripheral areas of Mauryan state while the core or central along with metropolitan

areas around Patliputra depict centralized elements of the state.

2.0 Dharama in Arthashastra

In the Arthashastra of Kautilya, the word Dharma is used in various senses and it is essential to comprehend them to understand his political thought. In accordance with its indigenous version, Kautilya considered Dharma in its broadest sense as a network of duties and a code of conduct which sustains both the society and the state. At least four meanings of Dharma in Kautilya can be distinguished: 1. Dharma as Social duty 2. Dharma as moral law based on Truth 3. Dharma as Civil Law 4. Dharma as Performance of rituals In Kautilya’s system, each individual has his standing in the social order and has accordingly to perform his duties (Varna-Dharma). The Brahmana was to devote himself to the pursuit of intellectual, religious and philosophical activities. Consequently, Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (Non-Violence), Brahmacharya (Celibacy), andAparigraha (non-stealing) were prescribed for him as aids in his line of evolution. The development of power through Kshtra and protection of subjects were the main pursuits of Raajanya or Kshatriya. Specialization in trade and commerce was the preordained duty of the Vaishyas. To serve these three Dvija-Varnas and also to pursue Vaarta were the duties of the Shudras. Therefore, performance of one’s duties (Swadharma) was an essential feature of Dharma. Some further ideas aboutDharma are found in the chapter where Kautilya deals with law. These ideas could be grouped under Dharma as moral law. According to Kautilya, there are four sources for settling a legal controversy:

(1) Dharma (Sacred Law)

(2) Vyavhaara (evidence)

(3) Samstha (History) or Charitra (conduct of reputed persons)

(4) Raajshasaana (royal edicts)

He says that if there be disagreement between institutional law and practice and the authoritative texts on Dharma, or if there be conflict between the texts and evidence, then the matter has to be settled in accordance with Dharma. To Kautilya, Dharma is rooted in Truth. Of these four, the latter is superior to the one previously named. By superseding the Shastras, the king could promulgate new laws, but their basic principles were to be rooted in the Shastras. He definitely stands for Truth and Justice over evidence, the texts of the Dharmashastras and institutional history and practice. Kautilya also uses the term Dharma in the sense of Civil Law. The third book of the Arthashastra is called “Concerning Dharma” (Dharmasthiya). It deals with the determination of forms of agreements, the determination of legal disputes, marriage, recovery of debts, deposits, rules regarding slaves and labourers, co-operative undertakings, rescission of purchases and sales, resumption of gifts and sale without ownership, ownership, robbery, defamation, assault, gambling etc. In fact, the meaning of Dharma as Civil Law is borrowed by Kautilya from the earlier writers of Dharmasutras. Customary aspects of Dharma also find illustration in Kautilya’sArthashastra. Adhering to Vedic and Brahmanic religion, he acknowledges rituals. He, thus, reveres Agni, Varuna, Yajna, Ashwini, Vaishravan, Jayant etc. as gods and recommends offerings to Indra (the God), Ganga (the river), Parvat (the mountain), Samudra (the Sea), Mushak (the mouse), Naga (the snake) etc. Calamities like floods, epidemics, famine, rats, tigers, serpants and demons were considered as an indication of the displeasure of God at man’s immoral conduct. Kautilya, therefore, requires religious ceremonies and prayers to avert such dangers. Kautilya was, however, a firm believer in the



moral order of the universe. According to him, there is a close relation between kingship and Dharma. . The King (Swami) is the fountain of justice (Dharmapravartaka).

It is the King’s ordained responsibility to maintain Dharma and to protect his subjects with justice. The observance of Dharma will lead the king to heaven. Since the State has been created by divine ordination to preserve Dharma, it has a moral purpose to fulfill. Politics may appear to be divorced from ethics in part of theArthashastra, but such deviations are incidental, rather than belonging to Kautilya’s system of polity.

Figure : Dharma in Arthashastra

2.0 Dharma in Arthashastra



2.1 Dharama and Political Ethics

To understand Kautilya’s notion of Dharma and political Ethics, one has to consider his

emphasis on social dharma and his moral and ethical considerations. The sociology

varnashrama was oriented not to any political and constitutional differences, but to the

notion of Swadharma.While the distinction between the virtues of the good man and the

good citizen was an important point in Aristotle’s Politics, the performance of one’s own

duties was the uppermost consideration of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. For instance, a

good Kshatriya is one who faithfully adheres to the duties of the Kshatriya. Similarly, a

good Shudra is the one who is faithful in the performance of his own specific swadharma. To

him, adherence to the Swadharma is a social task, it serves the good of the kingdom, it is

an ethical imperative and, if performed in the spirit of disinterestedness, it leads to divine

realization. A man has to perform his own Dharma as it would result in the attainment of

both mundane prosperity and spiritual good. According to the Varnasharama theory, a king has his own duties. He has to carry on the

duties of the Kshatriya house-holder. So long as he is true to his duties which have been

prescribed by the Vedas and elaborated by the Shrotries, he is a good man and a good

citizen. So long as he is a house-holder, he is to care for his mundane prosperity. When the

time comes for retirement, he can give up political duties and concentrate on austerities,

meditation and God-realisation. From this type of synthetic world-view, Kautilya discusses

the duties or Dharma of the King and says: “The King who administers (the kingdom)

according to Dharma, evidence, history and institutional practices and royal edicts, will be

able to conquer the whole world bound by four quarters”.

Kautilya prescribes four ways of conquering the earth and, after having given the details of

each, he says that having conquered the earth, the king should enjoy it according to his

own Dharma. According to the traditional Hindu view, which is fully subscribed to by

Kautilya, it is the duty of a Kshatriya King to expand his territories and conquer the

enemies. To understand Kautilya’s ethical and moral considerations, Ethics can be divided into

personal ethics and socio-political ethics.

2.2 Personal Ethics

If the “king of unrighteous character and vicious habits” fails, through these weaknesses or

otherwise, to protect people’s welfare; So far as personal ethics is concerned, Kautilya is an

emphatic and determined exponent of the moral philosophy) of kingship. According to him,

an accomplished king must be devoted to Dharma. He is called upon to act as the

“Promulgator of Dharma" (Dharma-Pravartak). Even if mendicants and ascetics engage in

improper proceedings, the king was to restrain them under threat of punishment because

if Dharma was transgressed, it would result in the evil of rulers. The king and his ministers, as upholders of the highest virtues, were to act as to present

themselves as a model for the masses. He was to be a follower of Truth

and Dharma, possessor of Trayee, and the protector of his Praja (people). That is how

Kautilya subscribed to the dictum "As the king so the people”(Yatha Raaja Tatha Praja). Creating the moral philosophy of kingship, Kautilya propounds the doctrine of enlightened

royal idealism and gives a comprehensive list of qualities which the king must possess: 1) Qualities of an inviting nature (Aabhigaamik Guna) 2) Qualities of intellect and intution (Pragyaa Guna) 3) Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaaha Guna) 4) Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Aatmasampad)



According to Kautilya, the king must realise the paramount necessity of controlling his

passions like lust (Kaama), Anger (Krodha), Greed(Lohha) and Attachment (Moha). He must

fight ceaselessly Shatru-Shadvarga, the six enemies of the king: sex, anger, greed, vanity,

haughtiness and over-joy. Kautilya enjoins him to conquer the four special temptations:

hunting, gambling, drinking, and women.

he would “fall a prey either to the fury of his own subjects or that of his enemies’. In his remarkable insistence on the conquest of the senses, Kautilya says that intensity of

lust and other appetites provokes one’s own people, while lack of policy creates enemies.

Hence, according to him, sensuality and impoliteness are species of demonic actions. In his

remarkable stress on the conquest of passion, Kautilya appears to V.P. Varma, “to be a sage

and a seer and not a mere political thinker”. This moral philosophy of kingship constitutes a great contribution to political thought. In the

Western political thought, we find that Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Kant stress the

significance of moral factors in politics. For instance, Plato has stated that the highest

guardians or the philosopher kings should be wise, courageous and temperate. But, if we

make a comparative estimate of Indian and Western political thought, we find that the

stress on moral factors is far more pronounced in Indian culture. However, Kautilya, who is regarded as a theorist of political power and conquest, was

primarily concerned with the control of unregenerate passions. This dominant concern with

moral values was an effect of the heightened and exalted character of spiritual truths in

Indian thought.

Figure : Personal Ethics

Debates

2.2.0 Personal Ethics

Kautilya subscribed to the dictum "As the king so the people” (Yatha Raaja Tatha Praja). Do

you agree to this in the present political scenario? Rules: 1. You can write “For” or “Against” the motion. 2. Your answer should not exceed more than 150 words.



Debates

2.2.0 Personal Ethics

If we compare the Indian and Western political thought, we find that the stress on moral

factors is far more pronounced in Indian culture. Cast your vote:- 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say

Qualities of King

2.3 Socio-Political Ethics

Under the concept of Raajadharma, the functions and duties of the kings were analysed.

The duties he was expected to perform were of two types: Protective and Promotive. Under

the first category, he was to protect the life and property of people, maintain law and order

avert dangers, punish wrong-doers, administer justice impartially, etc. On the other hand,

his promotive functions included promotion of moral and material happiness and welfare of

the people, development of agriculture, industry, trade, arts and education and regulation of

the means of livelihood, etc. The limits to the authority of the king were imposed by the

social and religious customs of his State which have existed from times immemorial and

with which he was required not to interfere.



2.4 Provision for Apad-Dharma

The socio-political ethics (Raajadharma) of the king included preservation, accentuation and

acquisition of territory. Kautilya outlines techniques of conquest, even relentless and

ruthless conquest. He refers even to a variety of means by which it may be possible for a

king, aspiring to expand his kingdom, not only to administer his own kingdom in accordance

with Sacred Law (Dharma), evidence (Vyavahara), history(Samstha) and edicts of

kings (Rajashasana), but also to pursue his expansionist designs. Kautilya, in fact, allows

the king to deviate from the established path of Dharma and transgress its injunctions in

times of acute crisis (Aapatti). Kautilya refers to various means by which the enemy should be assassinated. He advocates

espionage and battle of intrigues, furnishes a long list of drugs and black magic to ensure

the destruction of the enemy and even goes to the length of asserting that money should be

paid by royal agents by playing upon the religious credibility of the people. He suggests a

variety of methods that are useful to a monarch in gaining and maintaining power. Here,

politics seems to have been reduced to the act of seizure and maintenance of power by

means fair or unfair. This connotes the deliberate suppression of the autonomy of ethical

means for the sake of enshrinement of the political objectives of a monarch. Kautilya has

described various occasions when these immoral means could be adopted. For example,

corrupt officials could be killed, agitating rebellious villages, tribes or cities could be

destroyed; king could indulge in deception; while leveling charges against his enemies, he

could encourage warfare against them. The king was further allowed to adopt various ways

and means to find out the enemies and the criminals and to deal with them. He also

describes the various means, both moral and immoral, which a king could use to enrich his

treasury.

In the conduct of international affairs, Kautilya recommends the use of deception and

immoral means to cause despair in the enemy camps which could be smashed by spreading

the belief that their defeat and the victory of the king is inevitable. Similarly, some people

from the enemy camp can also be won over by various means. He also describes several

immoral means for deceiving and killing the enemy. Though these means are immoral, their

use in emergencies is considered essential by an able politician, Kautilya also suggest

several moral and immoral ways and means of killing the defenders of forts, collection of

taxes and creating dissensions among the people. The king is also allowed to first disturb

peace and encourage treason, to burn treasury, fields, and even the harems of women.

After having indulged in all such immoral activities, he should project himself as an innocent

person. He should express sorrow for much events for which he may hold others

responsible. Kautilya deals with at least five circumstances, when deviation from ethical means is

acknowledged:

1) To collect revenue for royal treasury at the time of crisis 2) To identify and arrest corrupt and disloyal officials of the state 3) To identify and arrest offenders and criminals 4) To vanish any probable conspiracy or rebellion either by princes, nobles, officials or by

ordinary subjects 5) To pursue expansionist politics in the enemy state or to punish a king who is

against Dharma. But, an advocacy of cruel political diplomacy does not imply that Kautilya

separates politics from ethics. He, in fact, teaches the virtues of self-restraint. He is a

staunch believer in the dominant moral concepts of the Indian tradition.



The fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the first Book of Arthashastra, depict Kautilya as a

fundamental believer in the ultimate triumph of the virtues of moral restraint. Advocacy of

ruthless and relentless policy and techniques was only temporary, realistic, calculated and

craft means of politics and diplomacy, where the territorial conquest was to be essentially

followed by Dharma Vijaya (victory of the religion). In fact, politics was broadly conceived as ‘Raajaniti’ or the Ethics of Politics or Political

Ethics. Due to varying circumstances, some deviations and departures occurred from the

fundamental norms of politics. Consequently, politics became, at times, a matter of

convenience and expedience. Most of the earthly misdeeds were because of the deplorable

fall of politics from its original pedestal. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is deeply concerned with the

complex situations of political life and offers solutions to the various problems of politics.

2.5 Concept of Dharma Vijay (Religious Victory)

Prescribing various sacrifices, Kautilya, however, could not disprove of an expedition of

conquest. He only strives to humanize it as much as possible. The king, who was out for

a Dharmavijaya, was to remain content with the formal recognition of his suzerainty and the

payment of a tribute by the conquered king; he was not to annex his kingdom or disturb its

administration (at one instance Kautilya disapproves even the extortion of tribute

in Dharmavijaya). If the defeated king died in war, or it he was occupying the throne

unwillingly; a suitable successor was to be installed in his place. If annexation became

inevitable, the established laws and customs were to be respected and the new subjects

were to be treated as kindly as the old ones. We have very little authentic information about

the internal condition of the Mauryan Empire, but it is not unlikely that it left untouched the

autonomy of the powerful republic of Punjab and Rajputana. The advice to refrain from

annexation after conquest was followed to an extent due partly to the uniformity of culture

and religion that prevailed in the states. Normally, in peace times, their relations were not

embittered by religious or cultural divergences or animosities, and so the war did not spur

the combatants to bring about the utter destruction of each other. Internal autonomy was

easily conceded.

3.0 Circumstantial Evidences

A picture of India during Kautilya’s life time is found in the travel records of Megasthenes.

The account is of mixed observations reflecting some emerging facts, showcasing the

relevance of Kautilya and his Arthashastra, such as:

(i) there appears to have been no institution of slavery. Though inequality in property was

permitted, there was some sort of equality before law. People had equal right to all

possessions. According to Megasthenes, people, in general, believed in the moral principle

of equanimity in life resulting in ideal situation of self-regulation instead of domination or

servitude.

(ii) The law, in general, did not play much role in the lives of ordinary Indians. It appears

that men of wisdom were highly respected and played an important role.

(iii) The state assumed a variety of functions including law and order, trade, commerce,

weights and measures, system of production and regulation of prices, care of markets,

regulation of labour relations etc.



(iv) The tensions between the spiritual and material also surfaced during this period. On one

hand it reflected doctrine of unity; faith in Deity; principle of immortality of soul; conflict

between good and evil in the body; and belief in future judgment after death. On the other

hand, it imbibed zest for life and enjoyment of the pleasures of the world though in due

proportions; which in turn paved the way to the view that the world is prison house, the

enjoyments of body are an obstacle to the realization of God and must, therefore, be

curbed.

(v) A definite all-India view emerged where indigenous people were “neither conquered by

others nor sought to conquer others.”

(vi) Kings during this period were still under discipline.

(vii) India was consisted of number of small states which were constantly at war with each

other. In this prevailing disunity, Alexander invaded north-west India and established an

authoritarian rule; which in turn provoked some rethinking and produced the political

thinker, Kautilya.

Circumstantial Evidences



3.1 Kautilya and Aristotle

Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) comes closer to his contemporary Greek philosopher, Aristotle

(388-320 B.C.) in several ways. Just as Aristotle was the first Greek political thinker to

elevate politics to the level of a science by separating it from ethical and moral laws,

Kautilya too was the first Indian thinker who transformed statecraft into an autonomous,

systematic and scientific study by separating it from both Ethics and Religion. The methods

of both Kautilya and Aristotle were analytic and genetic. They first divided a whole into

parts, studied each part thoroughly and synthesized the results of their analysis back into

the whole.

Figure : Aristotle

They considered the views of their predecessor thinkers and philosophers, pointed out their

respective shortcomings and gave their own suggestions to overcome them, so as to

improve the overall quality of the prevailing social; economic and political system. Even in

this exercise, they were inclined more to preserve the older values and ways of thinking,

rather than build castles in the air.

Aristotle, by presupposing the ruler’s ability to govern the minorities, entrusted him with the

task of regulating the organised society. Kautilya, too, entrusted his ruler with the

responsibility of preserving and protecting the social set-up which was becoming

increasingly corrupt.

Like Aristotle, Kautilya maintained that it is absolutely unjust for anyone to give up his

social and political responsibilities in order to become a philosopher or take up the

responsibilities of wandering ascetic, a sanyasi. Just as Aristotle had undertaken an in-depth study of the constitutions and political

organisation of the Greek City States of his times as well as the ones which existed before

him; Kautilya, too, had analysed at length a number of polities known as Dvairajyas,

Vairajyas, and Arajyas. His description of the procedures of choosing a king and of

organising judiciary and administration in India were, by and large, similar to those of

Aristotle’s Greek City-States. Just as Aristotle had accepted the superiority of meritorious and able philosophers over both

the individual and the society, Kautilya too had acknowledged the relative significance and

superiority of religious Brahmans versed in Vedas and Anavikshiki over the rest. Like Aristotle, Kautilya had also realised the significance of ruleby the noble elite. To both of

them, the people co-exist not by dint of fear or compulsion, but by the motivation to lead

the noblest lives and attain the maximum possible mental and spiritual results. They, thus

in their own ways, prescribe a code of conduct for the monarchs or the oligarchs and look at



the State as a union or brotherhood of men who are agreed to rule and to be ruled. They,

thus, acknowledge the underlying harmony between the subjects and the sovereign, the

people and the government. They also recommended a number of methods by which the

king could get rid of traitors, rebels, assassins and bad characters. The objective of both

Aristotle and Kautilya was the establishment of a society which is not only based on the

principles of human dignity, moral responsibility and enlightened patriotism, but also

accords the individual his due place in the overall social and political set-up. Despite these

striking similarities, there are some fundamental differences in the philosophies and

strategies of Aristotle and Kautilya. For instance, while Aristotle was eager to establish an

ideal State, Kautilya’s primary concern was the proper administration of a well-ordered

State. While Aristotle devoted himself to the comparative and critical analysis of the political

organisations of a variety of Greek City-states, and the changes to which they were often

subjected. Kautilya’s basic concern was the political stability of the monarch and the

monarchy, the king and the kingdom. While Kautilya was primarily interested in the monarchic system and wanted to make it

strong and enduring: Aristotle dilated upon monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy

and tyranny. His sociological network distinguished several types of oligarchies and

democracies based on the character of the dominant class in each. Kautilya takes little note of the transformations States constantly undergo. On the contrary.

Aristotle witnessed monarchy being changed into oligarchy. Oligarchy into democracy. and

democracy into tyranny. Kautilya. refers to Sangha» (republics) ways of popular control

over the king, who, in turn, was cautioned against political instability. But, sociological

details of the Politics are practically missing in the Arthashastra.Though Kautilya refers

to Dharma, Samastha, Vyavhaara and Raajashaasana as the sources of temporal authority;

no practical effective or constitutional limitations on kingly authority finds reflected in

the Arthashastra. While Aristotle underlines the significance of constitutionalism and constitutions, Kautilya

upheld the sovereignty of the king and kept him within the traditional maryaada (discipline)

of Anvikshiki, Trayee, Vaarta and Dandaniti.

In the times both of Aristotle and Kautilya, the institution of slavery was widely prevalent.

While Aristotle justified their exclusion on the basis of qualitative differences between the

master and the slave, Kautilya confined himself to ensure the slaves’ basic rights and

facilities and provided for their emancipation, without going into the question of

righteousness or otherwise of the social system it self. Both Aristotle and Kautilya excluded from citizenship certain classes of people and made no

attempt whatsoever to hide their contempt for the so-called lower classes, the ones who

were engaged in manual and industrial labour. Just as Aristotle would deprive the ‘slaves’

from the rights of citizenship, Kautilya would exclude the ‘shudras’ from the political

process, so as to preserve the assumed superiority of the higher classes of royal families,

the Brahmans, the royal fighters and the businessmen. Aristotle’s Ideal State was the Greek City-State and its social and political life, Kautilya’s

ideal was the Vijigishu King, aiming at conquering the whole of the country from the

Himalayas to the sea (Kanyakumari). In short, if Kautilya was philosophically closer to Aristotle, he was poles apart from

Machiavelli. Nonetheless, Aristotle, Kautilya and Machiavelli, all of them continue to be

relevant in their own distinct ways. It is, however, difficult to say as to who would be

relatively more relevant when and where? Their respective relevance would ultimately

depend on the social and political situations and circumstances which keep on changing.



Activitie

3.1.0 Kautilya and Aristotle

“The methods of both Kautilya and Aristotle were analytic and genetic”. Support this statement in not more than 150 words.

Did you know


Kautilya, a 4th century B.C.E. economist, recognized the importance of accounting methods

in economic enterprises. He realized that a proper measurement of economic performance

was absolutely essential for efficient allocation of resources, which was considered an

important source of economic development.

Debates


“Kautilya was philosophically closer to Aristotle”,comment. Rules:- 1. You can write “For” or “Against” the topic. 2. Limit your answer to 150 words.

Similarities

Similarities

Analytic and genetic



Preserve the older values and ways of thinking Entrusted the ruler with the responsibility of preserving and protecting Significance of rule by yhe noble elite

3.2 Kautilya and Machiavelli

Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) has often been compared with Nicolo Machiavelli (1496-1527 A.D.),

the modern Italian political thinker whose famous reflections are set forth in his three

complimentary works: The Art of War, The Discourses on King and The Prince. Machiavelli

occupies the enviable position of being the first modern political thinker or philosopher in

European history, one who symbolized a revolution in political theory that reflected the

Renaissance spirit. Kautilya, on the other hand, inherited a long tradition of pre-

existing Arthashastra school of thought, to which he had given a modernistic outlook and

content.

Figure : Machiavelli

Exhibits




Figure:Kingship

Did you know


The Art of War (Dell'arte della guerra), is one of the lesser-read works of Niccolò

Machiavelli. The format of 'The Art of War' was in socratic dialogue. The purpose, declared by

Fabrizio (Machiavelli's persona) at the outset, "To honor and reward virtù, not to have

contempt for poverty, to esteem the modes and orders of military discipline, to

constrain citizens to love one another, to live without factions, to esteem less the

private than the public good." Written between 1519 and 1520 and published the following year, it was the only

historical or political work printed during Machiavelli's lifetime, though he was

appointed official historian of Florence in 1520 and entrusted with minor civil duties.

Debates


“Both these thinkers introduced the formulae of elasticity in political action”. Do you think

this view is relevant in today’s time. 1. You can write “For” or “Against” the topic. 2. Limit your answer to 150 words.

Kautilya and Machiavelli



Similarities

Duality of treatment of the feelings Interest of the state is paramount Introduction the formulae of elasticity in political action. Aproach the common political problems in the same spirirt Interest of state is paramount

3.2.1 Similarities

With the vast difference in the Italian and Indian historical, geographical and cultural

situations, some subjects and themes of the Prince and the Arthashastra are, nevertheless,

common, for instance, the acquisition, preservation, and expansion of the State. Both

realistically analyze the methods by which a king may rise to supreme power and maintain

it against all odds. In both, we find the duality of treatment of the feelings and

susceptibilities of men and the tendency to legitimize force and fraud in the interest of the

State. For, both the authors, the interest of the State, vis-à-vis the interest of a person is

paramount.

Both of them held the belief that, through a proper and critical study of history one could

deduce not only the causes of maladies of society, but also the cures thereof. Imbued with

an enduring value, these precepts have validity, not only for the writer’s contemporary

time, but for the future too. One of the signal lessons of history is that in any particular

situation, alternative courses of action are open to the statesmen or the monarch, though

the choice offered may be limited. Accordingly, both these thinkers introduced the formulae

of elasticity in political action. For political preservation, while Machiavelli singles out a class



of aristocrats for ruthless action. Kautilya considers anti-social elements and conspirators as

enemies of the state and, therefore, objects of extermination.

There is another close affinity between the ancient Indian thinker and the modern Italian

thinker. Both of them approach the common political problems in the same spirit and

temper. Kautilya belonged to the Arthashastra school which looked at the political

phenomenon without linking them in any way with divine agency or revelation.

The approach was thus religious and rational. The Modern Italian thinker affected a break

with the medieval way of thinking and reasoning and adopted the empirical, or historical

method of investigation and emancipated the State from the bondage to ecclesiastical

authorities. He, thus, presented the art of kingship by delinking politics from medieval

influences of Christianity. Similarly, Kautilya reconstructed the science of politics, distinct

from the Dharmashaastra and Nittishaastra.

Machiavelli wrote his Prince with the professed object of indicating the methods by which

Lorenzo de Medici could make himself the master of Italy, just as Kautilya had in mind the

expansion of the Mauryan Empire under the aegis of Chandragupta Maurya.

As far as the maxims set out by Machiavelli, these are often addressed to princes as well as

to the high functionaries who carry on the affairs of the government and even the usurper

or the new monarch. In a similar vain, Kautilya’ s stratagems for warriors and statesmen, as

given in the Arthashastra, rest on his deep learning, knowledge of human nature and a

sound discernment of the mosaic of motivation that inspire people. both high and low.

These trickeries have undoubted utility for tyrants and usurpers but can equally be useful to

the good kings too.

In the field of realpolitik, there is much that is common between Kautilya and Machiavelli.

Kautilya is aware that the Swami (king) can hardly feel secure in a State where persons

shorn of power by him are still alive and well. Similar insistence was that of Machiavelli

while cautioning the Prince against any possible conspiracy and scandal. What brings the

Florentine closest to ancient India is his doctrine that whenever the interests of the State

are involved, the prince can adopt any means for the achievement of this purpose.

Machiavelli maintains that the sole end of the prince is to make the kingdom strong and

united, establish peace and expel the foreign invaders. For this noble end, any means would

be satisfactory.To him, the question of the morality of means is irrelevant so long as the

end is noble. The name of Machiavelli is, thus, intimately connected with the doctrine that

“the end justified the means”. He held that, like the art of navigation, the art of government

is also part of morals. However, Kautilya zealously upheld the claim of morality to regulate

personal and public life, he was prepared to advise the Prince to ignore their maxims and

resorts to unfair and even immoral means to protect the safety and security of the State.

Dealing with the king’s security against his sons, he asks unscrupulously to banish or

imprison a prince who has no love for his father. He should be kept under duress. He should

be prompted to thieving, robbery, poisoning or may be allowed to conspire and strike the

king and then be put to death. Kautilya suggests a number of measures for the suppression

of persons of doubtful loyalties and criminal character. The king’s spies should act as agent-

provocateurs so that such persons may be punished by fine or banishment. Thieves and

adulterators should be tempted to commit crimes and then punished. They may be

instigated to attack caravans and villages and then killed by troops specially posted for the

purpose or arrested or poisoned secretly in sleep or intoxication.



For the suppression of the foes of the State, Kautilya advocates (the methods of treachery

and secret diplomacy. Such officers, who injure State interest, should be prosecuted on

trumped up charges of murdering the king or adultery with the Queen.

In this way alone can all dangers arising from civilians be ruled out? The most important

task for the king was to ensure sovereignty and for that he could use any means, however

mean and petty.For financial emergency, Kautilya recommends the use of force to extract

money, confiscation of property, unscrupulous use of poison and dagger. He demands of a

king an attitude of naked self-interest displayed in inter-state relations where the State

should legitimately use intrigue, opportunism, treachery and violence. For the conquest of a

world-kingdom, everything is justifiable, including secret arms, fire, sword, medicinal

preparauons and poison, espionage, charms and temptations. Similarly, when

the Varnashramadharma, the four fold order, is in crisis and when the survival of a way of

life is at stake, Kautilya thinks no means of protection as immoral. He advises his king to

wield an octopus like iron grip on society and to destroy disloyalty by a heavy and ruthless

hand.

3.2.2 Variances

Between the range of subjects covered by Machiavelli’s Prince and

Kautilya's Arthashastra one can, no doubt, trace general resemblances, but the two flow

from radically different sources and imbibe opposite spirit and ideology. The prevalent

conception about Kautilyan and Machiavellian traits is founded on the monumental error of

viewing their thinking independently of their basic premise and postulates. The typically Indian conception of a synthetic philosophy, comprising all knowledge on

diverse human affairs, stands in contrast with the Italian analytical and materialistic

approach to social and political problems. Machiavelli’s empirical method, founded on historical data has no equivalent in Kautilya’s

casual references to classical antiquity. Machiavelli’s application of history to point a moral is

different from Kautilya’s dependence on scriptures and conventional wisdom for reinforcing

the traditional moral order. The more fundamental difference lies in the objectives of the two sets of policies formulated

by them. Machiavelli was motivated by a burning patriotism to see Italy rise again from the

ashes into a modern nation for the deliverance of the unhappy land from decay. Kautilya, on

the contrary, was aspired to ensure the security and stability of the kingdom so as to

achieve Dharma in the subcontinent. Kautilya’s major preoccupation, unlike that of

Machiavelli, was to foster and restore the ethical values of Indian system both in method

and in principle. Kautilya’s essentially spiritual disposition and Machiavelli’s essentially secular-material

makeup stand out against each other. Though both believed and prescribed to the rulers the

rules of the game of politics, the use of religion for political ends, their grounds for doing so,

as also their concepts of power and goals, were mutually exclusive.

Like Mahaabhaarta, Kautilya allows the king, for financial extortions from subjects, use of

techniques of extortion when the treasury is empty, the army is small, and the king has no

allies and friends abroad and is invaded. This is an Apaad-dharma or “Dharma of distress” in

a critical situation. Disapproval of these methods in normal conditions is a settled Kautilyan

prescription. The ultimate political ideology in times of peace is of inapplication to

these Apaad-dharma situations that transgress the cannons of Dharma. Kautilya also does not wholly subscribe to the view of Machiavelli that man is born bad and

has no inherent virtue in him. That he is a “compound of weakness, folly and knavery,

intended by nature to be the dupe of the cunning and the prey of the despotic”. On the



contrary, he admits that man has altruistic and good qualities alongside some selfish and

bad traits. He, thus, does not endorse the view of Machiavelli that man is thoroughly bad

and wholly selfish. To him, a man, apart from being selfish and leaning, is altogether

rational and is, therefore, advised to follow a code of conduct on Dharma and to adopt

immoral means to deal with cunning. Again and again, Kautilya asserted that the State was an organism on which depended the

happiness of the society and its individual members. This moral base of the State was

repeatedly denied by Machiavelli, for his mission was to free politics from its slavery to

theology and isolating the phenomenon of politics, so as to study them wholly without

reference to the facts of moral existence.

The doctrine of political dharma, Raajadharma, incorporates the functions and duties of the

king, outlines the principles of social conduct and deals with royal duties and civil and

criminal law. In accordance with Manu’s proclamation of Dharma as the supreme principle in

human life,Danda or the royal power of punishment, in the double aspects of coercion and

protection, is equated with Dharma. The King is considered as the wielder of the rod of

punishment and, if he is not just, he has to compensate for the loss and to perform

penance. This involves extra-political sanction for the king against violation of his duties of

protecting the fourfold social order. Dharma does not necessarily imply the contractual

concept of authority versus responsibility. Raajadharma is monarchical in its orientation and

reflects the personification of Dharmain the king and identifies the king with Dharma. It

further advocates the supremacy of Dharma over the king. It would, thus, be wrong to infer

that Kautilya, like Machiavelli, tends to give a carte-blanche to the king. In contrast, it can

be argued that the Kautilyan king was to allow public meetings in temples and markets. And, when he talks of humiliating the public, he means that ill-treatment is to be awarded

to the foreigners and not to the natives. Kautilya pleads for judicious taxation, a check on

profits and measures to remove poverty. Even in crisis, he suggests taxes to be levied on

certain classes of people and exemption for others. He also asks that the profits of the

fraudulent traders by usurped. Thus, in Arthashastra, there remains an ultimate

accountability to the rule of Dharma. It is interesting to note Kautilya’s perception of a two-fold standard of the end of existence.

On one hand, Kautilya admits the role of virtue in principles and policies of government,

such as, the behaviour of a saintly king, the noble training of a prince, and restraints on the

king. Kautilya rejects Bhardwaja’s advice to a king to involve his sons in sexual indulgence

for the sake of his own security. He condemns the advice to a minister to usurp the throne

by treachery and violence after king’s death. He suggests judicial pronouncements against

torture. In inter-state relations,he advocates Shapath (oath) as the basis of Pratigya

(treaties). Truthful kings should solemnly pledge and carry out duties with a sense of

dedication, he pleads. The second aspect is that of expediency. Those officials who are

found by spies to be disaffected for some just reasons are to be conciliated by riches and

honours. But, those disaffected for no reasons and harming the king’s interest may be

secretly put to death. While the loyal subjects should be honoured, the disloyal ones should

first be treated with conciliation, but if they remain disaffected even thereafter, they should

be entrusted with the work of revenue collection and of inflicting punishment so that they

incur people’s wrath and then they may secretly be put to death. There is fundamental difference between the kingship of Kautilya and Machiavelli. As for

Machiavelli, he left the personal and private character of the Prince of his upbringing out of

sight, and treated him as the personification of the State, wherein the private individual is

inevitably merged in the politician. On the other hand, Kautilya's characterisation of the king

was by self-control, wisdom, discipline and noble conduct. It further emphasises

acquaintance of the King with Trayee (the three Vedas) Aanvikshiki (dualistic

Sankhya), Vaarta (trade, commerce and agriculture) and Dandaniti (punishment) and also

restrains him



from Kama (lust), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed), Moha (Vanity), Mada(haughtiness),

and Harsha (over-joy). The ruler should daily reflect on his adherence to regular public

appearance and punctual performance of his routine duties and sacrifices. What is most

significant is Kautilya’s priority to Dharma over Danda. While Machiavelli argues, “it is not

necessary for a prince really to have virtues, but it is very necessary to seem to have

them”, to Kautilya, King’s departure from moral norms was a temporary expedient for the

restoration of those moral norms.The king was expected to be a virtuous person in thought,

word and deed.

If he had to be cruel by necessity, it was to make virtuous life possible for all. So far as the

ultimate objective of the State is concerned, Machiavelli did not think much of the populace,

the welfare of the less privileged did not bother him, as these concerned Kautilya. The

majority of citizens, to Machiavelli, were content with the security of person and property

that the State provided them. He glorified the State and stressed the over-riding claim of

the State to the loyalty of the individual. He would not concede that man had any right over

and against the State. Man attained his optimum development through subordinating

himself to the society. Machiavelli was of the considered view that the State would provide a

political framework essential to the development of mankind. On the other hand, to

Kautilya, the State was subordinated to the society which it did not create, but which it

existed to secure. The highest office of the State is, thus, an aggregate of the people whose

welfare is an end in itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end. The Kautilyan maxim: Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam (in the

welfare and happiness of the people lies the king’s welfare and happiness), is indicative of

his emphasis on the equation of welfare Vs. power. Machiavelli insists that a good ruler is

one who achieves the good of the people by fair or foul means, Kautilya demands that a

good ruler should be a good man, besides being a good ruler. Kautilya, therefore, was the

spokesman of Udyaana, the establishment of righteousness on earth, and aspired

for Vaarta. enhancement to trade and commerce. To conclude, Kautilya, in contrast to

Machiavelli, is not prepared to subordinate ethics to politics. His schematic diversion into

Machiavellian mode is a minor feature of his total conceptual make up. Thus, the tenor of

his though is both markedly different and fundamentally opposite to that of Machiavelli.

4.0 Contribution of Kautilya

The contribution of Kautilya to the subject is immense. He virtually reconstructed the

science of politics out of the tangled mass of Arthashastraliterature left behind by his

predecessors and left his impression on all subsequent thinkers. His Arthashastra proved to

be a vast storehouse of information and contained all the available data on almost all the

branches of politics. Dr. Radhakrishan Choudhary in his book Kautilya‘s Political Ideas and

Institutions shows that writers like Dandin, Bana, Samadeva Suri, Manu, Yajnavalkya and

Katyayana were greatly indebted to this great ancient Indian thinker. Dr. Ghoshal opines

that no only the admission of the great merit of Raajadharma in the Mahaabhaarta but also

the "wholesale incorporation of the Arthashastra material into the Smriti tradition” can be

traced to Kautilya. It was largely due to Kautilya that the estimate of the four traditional services, i.e. Trayee,

Aanvikshaki, Vaarta, and Dandaniti became a common place in the political thought of

India. The six traditional types of foreign policy, the techniques of applying the King’s

coercive authority, the relative importance of the seven constituents of the State, also

gained currency in the ancient Indian political thought. HisArthashastra proved to be a truly

great treasurehouse of knowledge about statecraft and diplomacy. It would not be wrong to

hold that if he had been guided and inspired solely by the ancient values of life embodied in

traditional Varnashramadharma, his Arthashastra could never have come to exercise the



wide influence it actually did. High ideals inspire men only when they are adjusted and

adapted to the actual needs of social life. Dharma is indeed the highest value of life, but it

should take due note of the material basis of life of Artha and Kantaa, divorced from the

actualities of life, it would be like a great and beautiful mansion without any one to live in

and enjoy it.Varna-Vavasthaa was a sound ideal,but the realism of Kautilya, however,

"leads him to realise that departure from the healthy rule are bound to take place, and

accordingly he found place for the offspring of mixed marriages in the new castes which he

recognised." A king should observe all the dictates of Dharma and morality in his dealing with his

subjects and also with States under ordinary circumstances, but Kautilya permits him to

violate them in crisis or if the interest of the States so require. Kautilya knew that the

pursuit of politics requires compromise with the principles of justice and morality. He

realised the necessity of wielding the rod of chastisement and. at the same time, cautioned

the king against the undesirable consequences of unduly severe punishment. He upheld the

ideal of Chakravartin but impresses it on the mind the Yijigishu that he should be content

with the recognition of his suzerainty by the less powerful chiefs and should not think of

annexing their territories. In all spheres of state-activity one finds that Kautilya avoids the

extreme and adopts the middle-of- the-road policy. Masking Arthashastra a manual for the

king and his ministers/administrators, Kautilya perceived their problems with such clarity of

vision that his solutions became a veritable storehouse of learning. In the words of M.V. Krishna Rao, “Kautilya was a State socialist in the sense that he stood

for the maintenance of the authority of the State, for the extension of its functions and

thereby establishes a socialist State”. Good government ensued from the social welfare

measures that the State took, pursuing them diligently and consistently. It was towards this

end that Kautilya spelled out the measures for the regulation of commerce and mines and

other manufacturers. Guilds and artisans were protected by the State. Kautilya's ideas,

thus, added up to more than "body of positive knowledge which has been applied to

industrial technique”,

and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at realizing Dharma through

Artha.Using the name Chanakya for Kautilya, K.M. Panikkar observed: ‘The system that

Chanakya perfected or inherited or, in any case, described, endured without much change

through the ages. The Hindu kings to last followed the organization of the Mauryan Empire

in its three essential aspects, the revenue system, the bureaucracy and the police. The

organization as it existed was taken over by the Muslim rulers and from them by the British.

If Indian administration is analyzed to its bases, the doctrine and policies of Chanakya will

be found to be still in force.” The essence of Kautilya’s teaching was the promotion of a more scientific statecraft, best

illustrated in his pronouncements on diplomacy and inter-state relations which have

enduring value still. His contribution lay not only in expounding the ramifications of

the Mandala theory with its pronounced postulates of peace through power, but also the

value he attached to Dharma Vijaya. Assigning equal importance to the three principal

factors of power, peace and time was a significant contribution of Kautilya.

In his own days, the sage-diplomat witnessed and inspired the irresistable expansion of the

Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta and Bindusara. Later, Chandragupta’s grandson,

Ashoka, built his great Empire on the basis of Arthashastra and the scheme of

administrative machinery detailed in its pages. Ashoka bequeathed to history the ideals

of Dharma or Dhamma, a moral or ethical order which is the very basis of every civilised

society. Thus, Kautilya was the prophet of Ashoka’s kingdom of righteousness, for despite

whatever Kautilya wrote on statecraft and diplomacy, there is the persistent case of a

serene atmosphere in the Arthashastra where intellectual liberty and spiritual freedom are

guaranteed for the people through the Dharma, the ethical, and not the theological, State.



In formulating the details of his political ideals, principles, plans and ethico-political

strategies, Kautilya had taken cognizance not only of the events of his days, but also the

ones that were likely to change the entire course of thought and action. That is why he and

his Arthashastra have their marked relevance not only for our times, but also for the

generations to come. Though the Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political

science, but as R.P. Kangle asserts, it is possible to trace some sort of a theoretical basis for

the teaching of the shastra.

Think 4.0 Contribution Of Kautilya

Express in not more than 100 words your views on contribution of kautilya to the present

political scenario.

Did you know 4.0 Contribution Of Kautilya

"Kautilya" was none else but "Vishnugupt Chanakya" of the "Nanda" and "Mauryan" period.

He was the best-known professor in the whole of ancient India (teaching at the "Takshshila

Gurukul") for politics and "Arthashastra" (Economics). Whatever is mentioned in "Kautilya's "Arthashstra", is based on human behavior. For

example, the book gives in detail what motivates, drives, and identifies people who are

enraged, frightened, greedy, and proud - possible trouble creators in any organization,

whether of commercial or political nature.

References

Original Sources:

Kautilya. Arthashastra, ed. R. Shamsastri, 1909. Chanakya Niti, 1994.

Commentories:

Altekar. A.S .. State and Government in Ancient India. 1958. Bandyopadhyaya, N.C., Kautilya : An Exposition of His Ideals and Political Theory,

1927. Beni Prasad, The State in Ancient India, 1927. Theory of Government in Ancient India, 1927. Brown, D.M., White Umbrella: Indian Political Thought From Manu to Gandhi, 1953. Choudhary, Radhakrishna, Kautilya’s Political Ideas and Institutions, n.d. Dikshitara, V.R., The Mauryan Polity, 1932. Ghoshal, U.N., A History of Indian Political Ideas. 1959. A History of Hindu Political Theories, 1966. Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of IndiaIn Hindu Times, 1967. Kangle, R.P., Kautilya Arthashastra, Pt III; 1965. Kirtipal, Chandramani, et., al., Chanakya Niti Aur Jeevan Charitra, 1992. Krishna Rao, M.V., Studies in Kautilya, 1958. Kosambi, D.D., An Introduction to The Study of Indian History. 1956.



Mehta, V.R., Fundamentals of Indian Political Thought, 1992. Mookerji, Radhakumud, Chandragupta Maurya And his Times 1960. Parmar, Aradhna, Techniques of Statecraft in Kautilya’s Arthashastra, 1987.Prasad,

Chandra Deva. :Mahan Rajnitik licharak : Kautilva.1988. Prasad, T.N., Essentials of Indian Statecraft:1962. Ramaswamy, T.N., Essentials of Indian Staticraft, 1962 Sharma, J.P., Republics of Ancient India, 1968. Shastri, U. B. Kautilya Arthashastra, 1988. Sinha, H.N., Ancient Indian Polity, 1938. Trautmann, T.R., Kautilya and Arthashastra, 1971. Varma, V.P., Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its Metaphysical

Foundations, 1974.

Articles:

Sankhdher, M.M., “Kautilya-Philosopher of Modern Welfare State”, Organiser, Vol.

XXXVIII, No. 36, January 18, 1987. “The Latest Work on the Kautilīya Arthaśāstra” Author(s): Franklin Edgerton Source:

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 48 (1928), pp. 289-322 Published by:

American Oriental Society. “Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India”, Author(s): Roger

Boesche Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 9-37 Published by: Society for Military History.

Summary

Kautilya, Chanakya or Visnugupta is considered as one of the most able politician

and minister in the Indian history. He was a philosopher and a statesman of

outstanding class and his classic compilation on material success and polity-

'Arthasashtra' is valued even today. He was the master of shrewd act of diplomacy.

He believed in four ways, namely, Treating with Equallity, Enticement, Punishment or

War,Sowing Dissension.

1.0 Kautilya on State

Kautilya was the minister in the Kingdom of Chandragupta Maurya during 317 – 293

B.C. He has been considered as one of the shrewdest ministers of the times and has

explained his views on State, War, Social Structures, Diplomacy, Ethics, Politics and

Statecraft very clearly in his book called Arthashastra Kautilya’s work is primarily a

book of political realism where State is paramount and King shall carry out duties as

advised in his book to preserve his state. Although Kautilya proposed an elaborate welfare state in domestic politics,

something that has been called a socialized monarchy, he proved willing to defend

the general good of this monarchy with harsh measures. A number of authors have

explored these domestic policies, but very few scholars have focused on Kautilya's

discussions of war and diplomacy.

2.0 Dharma in Arthashastra

According to Chanakya, the primary duty of a king is to protect "Dharma" or

righteousness in society. That king who upholds righteousness and virtue will have



happiness in this world and also in the next. Another significant statement made by

Chanakya is that a king who uses his power improperly and unjustly also deserves to

be punished. "The sacred task of a king is to strive for the welfare of his people

incessantly. The administration of the kingdom is his religious duty. His greatest gift

would be to treat all as equals." "The happiness of the commoners is the happiness

of the king. Their welfare is his welfare. A king should never think of his personal

interest or welfare, but should every try to find his joy in the joy of his subjects."

3.0 Circumstantial Evidences

Kautilya’s book came to be Chandragupta’s guide. Each of its 15 sections deals with

a phase of government, which Kautilya sums up as “the science of punishment.” He

openly advises the development of an elaborate spy system reaching into all levels of

society and encourages political and secret assassination. Lost for centuries, the

book was discovered in 1905. Compared by many to Italian statesman and writer

Niccolò Machiavelli and by others to Aristotle and Plato, Kautilya is alternately

condemned for his ruthlessness and trickery and praised for his sound political

wisdom and knowledge of human nature Kautaliya and Machiavelli(1496-1527 AD)

are both votaries of power and helped their kings to expand their kingdoms.

4.0 Contribution Of Kautilya

The lessons from Kautilya's Arthashastra are relevant even today and can be

integrated into the modern context of corporate management towards achieving the

ultimate aim of corporate governance, which is to provide value to shareholders and

stakeholders. Kautaliya's Arthshastra (322-298BC) is brilliant and comprehensive

treatise on all aspects of international relations, intelligence and good governance.

This master mind was the chief mentor and a minister who helped first emperor of

India Chandragupta Maurya to extend his kingdom to whole of India and beyond up

to Afghanistan.The political science propagated by him was refered as

'Rajadharma'(Righteousness of the King) and 'Nitishastra'(Science of Ethics)with

ethical course of conduct as hallmark of internal and external policy of the state.

Documents

Kautilya on the State